Ebbsfleet - Macclesfield

[JH]

Interesting incident at 3:20 involving a red for VC.

Personally it looks like red body-checks blue and then takes a dive whilst blue (sort of) kicks out at him...

Thoughts?

 

[cwyeary]

The center looks to be completely oblivious of two players going together at each other 10 yards away from him.

 

[one]

Hindsight is wonderful. In hindsight i would have stopped the game after the original tussle between the two players seconds earlier but in real time I could not have anticipated what came next and I would have let play continue after the players started to move away from each other. But keeping a trailing eye on them is an absolute must after that tussle.

So lets say you see the clash, whats the correct decision. For me the red player is just as guilty in this as the blue player if not more guilty. Red starts to runs towards the ball drop zone but then sees blue coming, stops, moves a little to the path of blue with his shoulder pointing towards blue (bracing for impact but making sure he has the best body angle). Unfortunately for red there is a slight head clash and red comes off second best. Red could have easily avoided the clash but he didn't. In fact he instigated it. It looks like blue could have avoided the clash as well but he chose to continue to run in the direction he started. (I don't think there was a kick out there, it was his forward momentum)

So my decision, caution both players for reckless challenged and start with a DFK to blue (red's offence had a higher tactical impact since the ball was near his PA). This will be a controversial decision and I know not everyone would agree with it.

EDIT: There is another replay of the initial tussle at 5:00.

 

[GraemeS]

I'm not sure if the red player is actually hurt or if it's simulation, so I'm not carding him for that. What I am getting the card out is for the deliberate body-check he throws into the blue player - the fact he may or may not have got hurt while trying to hurt/intimidate the opponent is irrelevant. And it's not aggressive enough a check to warrant red to me.

So I'd be going yellow to the red player, a talking to to blue for his involvement in the handbags that started it all. Restart is DFK to blue because we chose to ignore the initial handbags at the time and the red player's the one who comitted a foul that required the game to be stopped.

 

[santa sangria]

I am with Graeme. YC for red. Warning to both. DFK.

The RC is wrong IMHO. I hope it is overturned on appeal.

 

[zarathustra]

From the angle we have with the camera it does look a lot like red initiated the contact, and just came off worse, so I’m with Graeme and you be going yellow for Red and restart with a blue free kick.

However, it’s easy to see why the officials thought it was blue who initiated and deserved a red card, they only had one view at full speed and the ref had to chat with the 4th official as well

 

[GraemeS]

From the angle we have with the camera it does look a lot like red initiated the contact, and just came off worse, so I’m with Graeme and you be going yellow for Red and restart with a blue free kick.

However, it’s easy to see why the officials thought it was blue who initiated and deserved a red card, they only had one view at full speed and the ref had to chat with the 4th official as well

Oh absolutely, I'm saying that with the benefit of replays and knowing an incident is about to occur. For whatever reason, this referee has clearly switched off and has no idea there are handbags going on next to him and clearly doesn't see the collision.

Although all of that's fair and simply bad luck, I'm surprised he went for red based purely on the 4th's say-so. That reeks to me of taking an educated guess and getting it wrong, which you should never do with a dismissal IMO.

 

[one]

Oh absolutely, I'm saying that with the benefit of replays and knowing an incident is about to occur. For whatever reason, this referee has clearly switched off and has no idea there are handbags going on next to him and clearly doesn't see the collision.

Although all of that's fair and simply bad luck, I'm surprised he went for red based purely on the 4th's say-so. That reeks to me of taking an educated guess and getting it wrong, which you should never do with a dismissal IMO.

It really depends on what his 4th told him. If i haven't seen an incident and my 4th or AR tell me they have seen a violent charge incident or a headbutt, I'd like to think I would send off the offender.

 

[GraemeS]

It really depends on what his 4th told him. If i haven't seen an incident and my 4th or AR tell me they have seen a violent charge incident or a headbutt, I'd like to think I would send off the offender.

OK, but then the 4th official is the one that's taken an educated guess and just mis-presented it as a fact. There's nothing that the blue player does that's worth of a red card, so someone has guess at what happened somewhere in this process, be that the ref or the 4th.

 

[one]

OK, but then the 4th official is the one that's taken an educated guess and just mis-presented it as a fact. There's nothing that the blue player does that's worth of a red card, so someone has guess at what happened somewhere in this process, be that the ref or the 4th.

I don't disagree there. I was just responding to your statement of being surprised that he went purly with the 4th's statement. If you haven't seen the incident then that is what you are supposed to do if he reports it to you as a fact.